Right - I see.
Cross out the word "full" if it makes you feel better.
- done - now it makes sense.
What I meant by that was that an alternate may be carried instead of holding fuel, for example if it resulted in a lesser fuel requirement.
- not permitted in those circumstances in JAROPS. For your information, then, JAROPS would require alternate fuel in tanks at g/a for that forecast - it would be extremely unlikely that a landing could be 'assured' there under JAROPS definitions. I'm sure all the Ryanairs complied with that. No-one would have dispatched with less than alternate fuel. Also JAROPS does not specify any holding requirement in fuel loads at destination. The rules are on-line if you wish to look at them.
Given that the fuel policy is approved by the State regulatory body my company operates under, to disregard that requirement and continue anyway, THEN divert, THEN land without statutory reserves, I would probably find myself in deep legal doo-doo.
- no difference, then - and the RYs did not intend to do so, nor did they arrive at MAD with 'insufficient' fuel, of course, as we trust you understand with your experience?